Mixing religion and politics in the US

[dyanaprajna2011]

aha... pick up a history book and educate yourself on our founding father's lives, times, beliefs and social environment that shaped them. i wont do it for you. ill give you a hint though. gay rights and freedom FROM religion werent on the menu.

It's funny you should say that, because, from my understanding, it's the very thing you're advocating that the founding fathers were trying to move away from. They were a product of the enlightenment, and such strict and traditionalist views that you hold were not in their view. Look at Pennsylvania. William Penn, being brought a witch to trial, said that there was no long forbidding such a practice. Your views are mired in conservative Christian thinking, which has a skewed view of history, in an attempt to make their views out to be more than what they are. Seems to me that you should take your own advice.

 

[crossfire]

Buddhist monks are prohibited from performing any kind of ceremony for lay persons. There is a small allowance for doing something "for luck," but that's it.

According the the Vinaya, the rules for Buddhist monks and nuns, monks and nuns are not supposed to have any part in any marriage, not even as sending a message of interest! Marriage is a totally secular affair in Buddhism, and it seems like the Buddha intended to keep it that way.

From the Vinaya rules for nuns:

7 [5]. Should any bhikkhunī (Buddhist nun) engage in conveying a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, proposing marriage or paramourage — even if only for a momentary liaison: this bhikkhunī, also, as soon as she has fallen into the first act of offence, is to be (temporarily) driven out, and it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. -source-

From the Vinaya rules for monks:
5. Should any bhikkhu engage in conveying a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, proposing marriage or paramourage — even if only for a momentary liaison — it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. -source-​

However, the Buddha did give some guidelines for married Buddhist laypersons. They might be difficult to fulfill if you can't get married by secular authorities.

 

[hornsby]

It's funny you should say that, because, from my understanding, it's the very thing you're advocating that the founding fathers were trying to move away from. They were a product of the enlightenment, and such strict and traditionalist views that you hold were not in their view. Look at Pennsylvania. William Penn, being brought a witch to trial, said that there was no long forbidding such a practice. Your views are mired in conservative Christian thinking, which has a skewed view of history, in an attempt to make their views out to be more than what they are. Seems to me that you should take your own advice.

im a liberal atheist, but i accept history for what it is. and US history is more conservative and christian the further back you look, and gets more liberal and secular by the minute.

if you do your research you will find that most of our founding fathers were conservative christians living in a conservative christian environment and representing conservative christian citizens. you will find that their concern regarding religion was about the liberty and freedom of practicing various denominations within the christian religion without persecution and escaping state regulated/mandated religion.(as was the case overseas)

this is what the first amendment and more specifically the expression "separation of church and state" was ALL about.... nothing more...CERTAINLY NOT extending rights to other religions OR atheism. not that they actively rallied against other religions or lack thereof.. THEY SIMPLY DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER ATHEISM OR OTHER RELIGIONS because it was a non issue at the time as most everyone was (or seemed to be) christian.

only much later did people stretch the meaning of the amendment beyond what it was initially intended....

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

im a liberal atheist, but i accept history for what it is. and US history is more conservative and christian the further back you look, and gets more liberal and secular by the minute.

if you do your research you will find that most of our founding fathers were conservative christians living in a conservative christian environment and representing conservative christian citizens. you will find that their concern regarding religion was about the liberty and freedom of practicing various denominations within the christian religion without persecution and escaping state regulated/mandated religion.(as was the case overseas)

this is what the first amendment and more specifically the expression "separation of church and state" was ALL about.... nothing more...CERTAINLY NOT extending rights to other religions OR atheism. not that they actively rallied against other religions or lack thereof.. THEY SIMPLY DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER ATHEISM OR OTHER RELIGIONS because it was a non issue at the time as most everyone was (or seemed to be) christian.

only much later did people stretch the meaning of the amendment beyond what it was initially intended....

The history of our country, while having much Christian influence, was far from completely Christian, as you seem to think. The writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was quite liberal. He rejected much of conservative Christian theology, and made sure that he didn't include any of this in our ideas. Many founding fathers were deists, liberals, etc. Some were conservative Christians, but not as many as you seem to think. The ideas of Thomas Paine were quite popular, and American transcendentalism had a great influence, although this was a little bit later. America was almost as much a melting pot then as it is today.

 

[Jainarayan]

thats your modern interpretation along with the belief that this refers to ALL religions or lack thereof.

our founders never intended for such interpretations, and if they knew it would end up being interpreted this way hundreds of years in the future they would have done their darndest to be more specific.

If you go to Google Maps you can get the directions to the US Supreme Court. There you can file a suit for the justices to reverse all the court's decisions on the subject. Moreover, you can argue a case for their lack of understanding of the US Constitution.

'Kthxbye.

 

[drakek]

Not only in USA but all over the world politics is very close to the Religion.

 

[Pappillion001]

The First Amendment allows for the freedom of all people, of any religion, to practice their faith without worry of government intrusion, or something like that. In other words, a Hindu or Sikh can practice their faith just as much as a Christian or Jew.

Now, we have seen the great debate on whether to allow homosexuals the right to marry. Christians oppose on religious grounds, stating that their scriptures decries homosexuality as an abomination.

But, what about religions that allow homosexuality? Eastern religions are far less likely to condemn homosexuality than Abrahamic religions. With this in mind, does not allowing homosexuals the right to marry favor Abrahamic religions, and just one specific interpretation of them at that, over other religions?

It is not a religious issue. Gays get to be gay like Christians get to be Christians, even though Atheists would like to see them go someplace else, they get to stay and be Christians. In this instance religion is no different than being gay.

 

[Pappillion001]

thats your modern interpretation along with the belief that this refers to ALL religions or lack thereof.

our founders never intended for such interpretations, and if they knew it would end up being interpreted this way hundreds of years in the future they would have done their darndest to be more specific.

If our founders had intended for religion to have a place in government they would have made one for it don't you think. What they did was look at the mess religion created in Europe especially the Protestant/Catholic problems in England and Ireland. They may have been religious, some more than others but they understood that in order that the nation have the best chance to remain free was to keep religion at home.

Some may object, but most would not as the only change is overall our population is not as religious as they were, but that also was something they had considered. That our culture may differ and so certain protections were put in place that could not be changed and others that permitted change.

History is very clear on this you don't even have to read much just look at how we are actually set up. Actions and words they can say a lot

 

[ChristineES]

When it comes to individuals, people are going to vote for or against something while using their own values, whether they are religious or not religious. That includes politicians.
We can't tell people what their values should be. Yet at the same time, we must be able to think about outside our values, such as "I am a Christian but I need to remember not all the people I make this law for are Christians" type thoughts or "although I have no religion, I have to remember that others do have religion..."
The problem isn't so black and white as it would seem. The problem also isn't easily solved, as well. People vote with their conscience- whether for a law or for a candidate or against a law or candidate. And their ideas of what is right or wrong will be different than everyone else's.

Instead of blanket condemning, we may have to take a closer look at what motivates people. Not as easy as it seems.

 

[darkendless]

W
The problem isn't so black and white as it would seem. The problem also isn't easily solved, as well.

Yes it is. People apply their own values to decisions that they are asked to vote on and which do not affect them in the slightest.

The problem is that people care about "their" rights and not whether they are discriminating against a group of people they're likely to never be affected by.

To solve the problem is tough because people are stupid and will only get stupider. It doesn't help when churches worldwide preach against homosexuality convincing people of its dangers to society. Sadly it's illegal to prevent people spreading hatred and lies when they make up more than 50% of both our populations.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Christine makes a good point. People vote on what their beliefs and values are, and politicians, while maybe taking some inspiration from their beliefs, have to take into account their constituency as well, some of whom may not share the same values as they do. They have a predicament, as they have to sometimes look past their own beliefs, and do what's good and right for the greatest amount of people. It's not so easy or clear cut.

 

[darkendless]

Christine makes a good point. People vote on what their beliefs and values are, and politicians, while maybe taking some inspiration from their beliefs, have to take into account their constituency as well, some of whom may not share the same values as they do. They have a predicament, as they have to sometimes look past their own beliefs, and do what's good and right for the greatest amount of people. It's not so easy or clear cut.

A lot of people seem to think that the book they believe in trumps the needs of others.

Arrogance plain and simple.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

because i base my opinion on their lives culture and times..... he is basing his opinion on modern views.

We live in those modern times
Interpretations change with time
We do not, an can not live in the past, or tie ourselves to what was only known then.

If a nation no longer supports an ancient interpretation, it is either time to change the constitution or the law.

 

[ChristineES]

A lot of people seem to think that the book they believe in trumps the needs of others.

Arrogance plain and simple.

Keep in mind that only the minority of Christians do that. There is arrogance in any group of people.

 

[darkendless]

Keep in mind that only the minority of Christians do that. There is arrogance in any group of people.

I think it is more than the minority. Look at homosexuality which is a hot topic everywhere. There is so much religious based opposition to it.

 

[McBell]

Political Ideology And Homosexuality



Here’s a paradox I observed for the naïve and ignorant, some of the immigrants here seem the think the WP ideology is about getting rid of homosexual? Here’s the thing this particular ideology whether it’s fascism of southern extremist doctrine which are both supremacist do not deal with the persecution of homosexual in fact if anything they will help the white gay especially when standing against a man or woman who may be against extreme politics , the fact that political ideology dose not propagate a no homosexual practise agenda , doctrine or teaching as dose religion totally escapes their fathoming, whilst these people are shouting fascist extremist homosexual accusations they are totally unaware of the fact that there are a percentage of fascist racist gay people freely functioning as homosexuals under the same fascist umbrella they use funny not ah ha uh?, how ‘s that for a paradox of ignorance, on the next hand it is religion that teaches against the freedoms of homosexual practice and not political ideology politics trying to please everyone as it does, do they feel like a Pollock now,? Bloody hell I would do, further more I do not follow any political ideology not that I am wanting to kill all homosexuals, not my world or my concern except for religious practice which sets it own laws, in fact like the Catholics I put religion before politics though I do vote, there are specific laws within religion to prevent the practice of homosexuality whereby with this particular ideology it does not.